your right the fact that the republican party is anti women anti hispanic anti black anti gay and anti poor and middle class has absolutely nothing to do it. the dems want to give money to the disenfranchised that the only reason. the reason the republicans are going to lose is they are a party for only a small percentage of the population. lets face it the republican party unless it games the system is dead as a national party putting people up for president and dying at state level elections. it has nothing to do with the dems policies and everything to do with the republicans.
The Democrats will win whoever they put up for POTUS
- Thread starter cosmictraveler
- Start date
- Status
So long as it is the Republican Party line, but you are correct in this respect, Republicans do face an uphill challenge because their ideological beliefs have become more extreme and out of touch not only with the American people but reality itself. You can only fool a bunch of demented white seniors for so long. Eventually, they die off or otherwise become incapable of voting.
That's why Baby Bush II is attempting to moderate the Republican Party. I will give him credit, he is the first and only Republican to date who has had the moral fiber and courage to timidly hint to the emperor (i.e. the Republican Party base) that he doesn't have any clothes on. And that is why I think Baby Bush II will fail to gain the Republican Party nomination even though he has the overwhelming support of the Republican establishment. Up until now, the Republican establishment, has never lost in the Republican nomination process. This might be the first time. This is a fight for the soul of the Republican Party. Who will win? I don't know. But despite Baby Bush's huge financial base, I think it will be an uphill swim for him. Never doubt the craziness or the fanaticism of Republican entertainment fed zealots.
Yes, there are more people today on government programs than ever before in nominal terms, because there are more people in the US than ever before. But in relative terms, as a percentage of GDP, we are far from our historical highs in that regard. Back in 1942 government spending as a percent of GDP was 42.7%, compare that to today when government spending accounts for 20.3%. So in relative terms your belief just isn't true. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Last edited:
I'm also including the military and all companies that deal with the government.
Do your figures include them?
Yep.
That is not true, unless the States and Counties have been going on a hiring binge the last two years.cosmic said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/01/24/the-growth-of-the-federal-government-1980-to-2012/
They had one budget year - 2010 - to deal with the aftermath of the Republican debacle in Iraq and the Republican-engineered crash of 2008. The Reps broke that year by filibustering, and drawing Blue Dog Dems into alliance.syne said:
That is false - the Democratic Party's internal economic priorities range widely (the Blue Dogs are rightwing corporate extremists who routinely join the Republicans in favoring tax cuts for the rich above all else, for example. There is no similar faction in the Republican Congress), but in aggregate Dem policies were the same as during the Clinton administration, when cutbacks on government assistance to individual citizens and increased corporate favoritism in environmental issues, trade agreements, and taxation, were standard Dem policy.syne said:
The threat of default was explicit and overt, and used repeatedly by Republican Congressional leadership to coerce legislation.syne said:
But then the other obligations of the US government would be defaulted upon, at least temporarily.syne said:
Default raises the eventual cost of new debt. Just threatening default cost the US billions.syne said:
The best priority would probably have been to default on payments owed to any businessman, contractor, or financial institution that made campaign contributions to the Republican Party that had pulled that imbecile stunt, and make sure the regular citizenry and Chinese bondholders were taken care of as much as possible.syne said:
The amazing thing is how short the electoral memory is for this stuff. Anyone who thinks the Republicans cannot take the Presidency
because anyone they run will be associated with the past years of a national Party stroking the robber barons while rubbing shit in its hair and setting it on fire because Socialism! Terrorism! Benghazi!
has forgotten the simple fact that the US "conservative" or "independent" white male voter between 30 and 65 has the political attention span of a fruit fly and never admits he was wrong.
Confronted with the necessity of admitting they were wrong and the liberals were right - about anything, let alone every major political issue come before the US since 1964 - they will vote for Palin, Romney, Paul "Ayn" Ryan, Ted Cruz, another and even more corrupt Bush, Mario the Dim, anyone - anyone at all. So the Reps start out with 27% of the likely vote in their pockets. Add 12% for the Fundies of all stripes. Now all they have to do is convince 11 of the remaining 61 that Hillary sounds like that one bad teacher they've resented ever since, or the Presidency is a job for men who understand military virtues, and they're in the White House.
There are more agencies that are part of the Federal government today than ever have been around. I know of at least a dozen new agencies that weren't invented until after 1965. Homeland Security and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and United States Department of Health and Human Services were newly formed so how can there be less people working for the government today than in 1965 if none of those agencies weren't around?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
This election can't be predicted of course but the factors have already been discussed. People do (historically) get tired of one party being in control of the White House for two terms and are therefore ready for change.
So that's ore factor for a Republican being elected.
However, the Republican Party is as extreme as it's ever been and many people just aren't going to be able to vote for a President from that party at this time. The biggest factor (IMO) being whether a moderate candidate (Bush) is chosen in the primaries or a candidate that is more representative of the extreme conservative base of the party.
If it's the later that's one factor for a Republican not being elected.
Hillary seems to (currently) have the lock on the nomination for the Democrats and would be a strong candidate in many ways however we don't tend to anoint our Presidents and her time (to actually be elected) may have passed.
I think more people could actually get behind a strong Democratic candidate that had less baggage than Hillary.
Republicans would definitely win if the religious far right wing of the party was not in control. Simply dropping religion from politics and just focusing on fiscal responsibility would give Republicans the election.
Regarding some of the comments in the OP... "poor people" don't tend to vote in representative numbers and as was pointed out there isn't any great government handout going on in the first place.
The problem with both parties (and with our current system) is that there is too much money involved from "special interests".
If that were not the case we would have two moderate parties, both would be acceptable to most people and they would largely alternate back and forth.
As it is, many people vote for a party that is hard for them to stomach only because they feel the other party is no choice at all. Before (Bill) Clinton that party was often the Democratic Party and now it is the Republican Party.
One day, perhaps, we can get back to two moderate parties without as much special interest medling. As it is, the interest of the people is not really what is controlling the election on either side but particularly on the Republican side.
So that's ore factor for a Republican being elected.
However, the Republican Party is as extreme as it's ever been and many people just aren't going to be able to vote for a President from that party at this time. The biggest factor (IMO) being whether a moderate candidate (Bush) is chosen in the primaries or a candidate that is more representative of the extreme conservative base of the party.
If it's the later that's one factor for a Republican not being elected.
Hillary seems to (currently) have the lock on the nomination for the Democrats and would be a strong candidate in many ways however we don't tend to anoint our Presidents and her time (to actually be elected) may have passed.
I think more people could actually get behind a strong Democratic candidate that had less baggage than Hillary.
Republicans would definitely win if the religious far right wing of the party was not in control. Simply dropping religion from politics and just focusing on fiscal responsibility would give Republicans the election.
Regarding some of the comments in the OP... "poor people" don't tend to vote in representative numbers and as was pointed out there isn't any great government handout going on in the first place.
The problem with both parties (and with our current system) is that there is too much money involved from "special interests".
If that were not the case we would have two moderate parties, both would be acceptable to most people and they would largely alternate back and forth.
As it is, many people vote for a party that is hard for them to stomach only because they feel the other party is no choice at all. Before (Bill) Clinton that party was often the Democratic Party and now it is the Republican Party.
One day, perhaps, we can get back to two moderate parties without as much special interest medling. As it is, the interest of the people is not really what is controlling the election on either side but particularly on the Republican side.
Last edited:
http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-over...ables/total-government-employment-since-1962/
peaked in 69 and the general trend has been downward federal empolyeemeant is at the lowest its been in 50 years.
do you seriously not understand how number of agencies doesn't have doesn't effect total employeement that much?
I only know that I see more agencies now than I've ever seen in my entire life. I think that someone is messing with the amount of workforce that the Federal government has working for it but that's just my opinion. Numbers have always been manipulated by everyone throughout time. Who's to say that the Federal government isn't manipulating the numbers today?
Every agency that exists has added not subtracted from its beginning personnel numbers. Now, with the new agencies, they add not subtract from the overall amount of civil service workers. So again I say something is being manipulated by someone and I and others do not believe the government has decreased in numbers but has actually increased unlike what you "claim" to be the other way around.
How can any agency reduce its personnel when there are more people needing their help?
ok that bordering on conspiracy theory right there. and there are agencies whose employment have gone down.
If you don't see the manipulation of facts then you are not going to be able to see the truth. Since it is the Federal workforce to bring us the numbers that they find within their personnel, it would be easy to change the numbers at anytime. Lowering the amount of people working either directly or indirectly would be something the Federal government would like to let people think is correct. But people like myself question just what the truth is and I cannot get any answers other than the ones inside the system. No outside auditors have ever been brought in to determine if the numbers are right or wrong. Even if outside auditors are brought in they too could be influenced to manipulate the numbers.Where's transparency of that?
so in other words you don't give two shits about the facts your gonna believe something false because it fits with your ideology? good job sparky a sterling example humanity there.
Well it just seems more common sense that the amount of personnel in the government has increased and I really could care less if you can't see it or just don't want to see that. I'm not trying to change your mind about what you believe but only say look at what I see and then if you still can't see it then you can keep your opinion and I'll stick to mine. Either way I will never be able to show proof that there are more personnel now working in the government one way or another than ever before. It is again common sense that leads me to think the way I do.
OK, so you want use to believe in a massive government conspiracy that would transcend administrative and legislative branches of government and involve both political parties over many decades. You think the government is operating a like a mobster and keeping two sets of books. Wow, that's a whopper. And of course, you don't have any evidence to support that belief. Why would career bureaucrats risk their careers, their benefits, their retirements, not to mention their freedom, in order to deceive Americans for some indeterminate nefarious reason? I thought you were the guy who represents himself as a man of reason and evidence? Where is your reason and evidence to support that belief?
Basically, you don't believe anything the government says. So what good would auditors do? "Govment" can lie to auditors just as easily as anyone else. You have completely divorced yourself from reality here. You don't have a shred of evidence the government is lying about the number of people it employs or spends or anything else for that matter. I could just as easily claim you are a Martian. I have as much evidence for that claim, and perhaps more, than you have for your claim that the government is cooking the books.
With the exception of the black ops budget, military and intelligence, our government is very open. Both Congress and the President conduct audits. The government employs a number of independent inspector generals to provide oversight and conduct government audits. In the case of the Federal Reserve, an outside auditor is used in addition to audits by the Treasury and internal Federal Reserve audits. So you belief that the government isn't audited is just nonsense. Additionally, there are laws which protect government employees if they report wrong doing. So again, where is the motivation? Where is the evidence? http://www.whistleblowers.gov/
Last edited:
Actually, it doesn't make sense. As for new agencies, many of them are just old agencies with new names (e.g. Department of Homeland Security) is just an amalgamation of previously existing agencies (e.g. Coast Guard) in order to enhance and increase operational efficiency and effectiveness.
It isn't I do not believe everything the Feds are saying but allot of what they are saying isn't true. They say a few truths then lie about many other things. That is what has been going on for a very long time. That is why I say that there's no difference between the parties because they both lie and say the truth from time to time.
I'm not divorcing myself from anything, I'm saying what I feel is common sense about what's going on. What if I'm right and you are wrong, ever think about that? The government hides so many things , look at Hillary deleting her private Emails when she was the one that wanted "transparency" but has now shown her true colors.
This Federal government reminds me of what Russia was like and seems to be still like by hiding facts from their own citizens so that the top 1% can gain more and more domination over the rest.
I'm waiting for evidence. What are those many things?
Last edited:
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
well i can't see it because i looked up the facts and the facts say the trend is going down so you can prattle on about your common sense. but your wrong and presented the facts to prove it. i looked at what you see and it makes zero sense. to believe what you do requires the delbrite ignore of physical reality and easily findable facts
hey look more facts showing your common sense is wrong
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014...ent-now-employs-the-fewest-people-since-1966/
I read a book once that said the earth would end on June 3 1976. In that book there were signs that pointed to that happening. Since I read that book is it true that the world would end that date? Well I waited and behold we are still here. Just because it is written somewhere should I believe it? Same thing with statistics they can be altered in anyway you want them to be. I took a statistics course in college and found that to be true. So don't trust all that you read, little that you see and all that you hear.
- Status