I'll try to answer this as I see things. First of all, I believe that federalism, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, is pretty much dead. The fears of the Anti-Federalists and the reasons for the Articles of Confederation are bearing themselves out and have been increasingly so over the past hundred or so years. The Chief Executive has gained so much power in this country that he can almost puppetteer policy, both foreign and domestic through evolved powers and an impenetrable bureaucracy. Yes, I'm a Republican. It's not really an issue of big vs. small government for me, though. If you go back to some of the original argument over government's role in our country and its power (that between Jefferson and Hamilton), I can see points on both sides. Most of Jefferson's ideals of shared powers and a truer form of democracy have died with the rise in power of big business. Hamilton's ideals of centralized power and upper class leadership have won out, I think. Who was the Republican then? I can see pieces in both. I'm Republican more on perceived moral standards. I don't always vote Republican and am more than a little upset over Bush's actions in the wake of all of this. However, I also think that his actions were somewhat dictated by the system that was set in motion long ago. I'm starting to ramble now, so I'll cut it off. I think that the government should have some responsibility to the citizens in the way of creating a more equitable economy and true separation of powers among the branches and between federal vs. state/local governments. If this was accomplished, the government could more easily live up to its responsiblility to the citizens on all levels. Who's to blame for all this? The undeterred evolution of the system toward more extreme executive power. In other words, no one and everyone.

Wow, glad to see that this is prompting so much rational discussion.

The Senator is probably beyond drunk right now; furthermore, beyond drunk and banging the future ex-Mrs.-Senator Loogar.

He'll get back to this by Monday, I'm sure.

I read it, but I'm stupid. Although I will comment like so: It seems a lot of the bad rep that Bush has been getting this term and the one before is with a big "but". Economy issues, foreign issues, what Mike was citing, etc aren't in a great state "but" there are people (spin doctors, maybe...?) that say it's not Bush's fault because our economy was sliding and foreign affairs were shaky before Bush got into office. I don't like Bush and there are a lot of worse things I could say about him but I'll say this - He's found himself/gotten himself in a lot of bad situations and hasn't made any of them better. It seems like our next president will be nothing more than a patch-up guy, trying to fix the stuff Bush didn't/couldn't or did wrong. and even if the patch up guy doesn't succeed he won't be fully to blame because things were a mess before he took over the reigns. i hope this is not really a trend and if it is i hope is does not continue.

My problem with Bush is his overall ideology.

He doesn't admit fault and almost never changes course.

Cowboy Ahab.

and god and jesus and the bible

John Roberts is a gentleman.

I'm not defending Bush, but the economy isn't in bad shape and hasn't gone into some sort of tailspin after Clinton as quite a few GOP detractors would want you to believe.

First off, the president does not control the economy. Secondly, if the economy were in the shitter so bad, Bush would not have been re-elected [See: Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush]. Interest rates are low, unemployment is low, the transfer of jobs from manufacturing to the service sector--as well as outsourcing some service sector jobs to India or China--isn't a death knell for the American Dream and real estate has helped make a good chunk of money and stability for quite a few citizens out there.

At the same time, Bush's love affair with goverment spending and expansion of the federal government is way out of line, but I guess that's why I prefer good old fashioned Congressional gridlock versus single party control of the legislature and the presidency.

I think SB was talkin' Repubs vs. Dems, and not Bush vs. Dems.

Yeah, I was trying to focus on the role of government overall, per Loogar's question. The question is far too large to answer, really. Distilling it to Bush brings it into the here and now, but it's more than that.

Appreciated. I once said the best form of government is Republicans control federal gov, Dems control states, because it gives states more autonomy, or would vis-a-vis stated ideologies.

I think the whole big vs. small government thing is now a complete joke, but I fully agree that trying to categorize Hamilton and Jefferson through today's political spectrum is damned near impossible.

Fu makes a salient point about gridlock, and I think the founder's envisioned things that way, which speaks to Mike's point about presidential power.

Thanks for responding SB ( and in a rational manner)

so i'm curious, what are those moral standards? you don't seem like the keep dudes from kissin' each other/bible thumping type--what are the moral issues you believe the republicans have over the democrats? and thats not an attack, i really am interested.

For five years in a row the number of Americans below the poverty level has grown while the top ten percent has doubled its wealth. The Bush tax cuts have greated the biggest defict in our history, basically maxing out our credit to China and destabilizing our currency and our future.

The difference between a CEO's salary and the average worker in his/her company is exponentially greater than a few decades ago..

The CEO makes

1982 - 42 times the average worker
1990 - 107 times the average worker
2003 - 301 times the average worker
2004 - 431 times the average worker

Kids, there used to be a middle class.

If you exclude growth in government jobs, there has been a net loss of 52,000 jobs in the "Bush economy"... (including a net loss of almost 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs) the greatest consistent job loss since the depression. Service economy jobs have been the only sector with growth, with jobs at lower hourly wages and no health benefits growing fastest. Our economy is moving quickly in the direction of "third world" economies. That anyone reasonable (who doesn't have rigid conservative views that Bush can do no wrong, and any bad news can oly be partisan distortion) thinks we are doing ok is tribute to media manipulation that is astonishingly successful. Facts, apparently, don't matter as much as pocketing a commodity or two and taking our daily Soma dose. We are very close to being in an economic crisis... and there are no Democrats on the horizon, other than Hilary (who essentially is just a competent, efficient moderate Republican) who can change any of this.

Theoretically (though certainly not in practice), Democrats believe that the people need the government to help them in there lives. The extreme of this is national health care, public control over industry---commie shit. Republicans believe in a smaller, more fiscally responsible government, that rewards personal achievement but also recognizes the need for a social safety net.

In practice of course its all fucked up and the so-called "culture war" has played a huge part.

Basically, without the culture war shit, I would probably be a republican, but I dont believe so much in bombs and Jesus, so I am one of the last in a slowly dying but always genteel fraternity known as a "Southern Democarat"

Today it seems that both parties are for big government, with the Dems favoring social spending and corporate welfare while the Repubs simply favor corporate welfare. That seems to be the only major difference between them economically.



The culture war is probably the best move the Republicans have made in the last 20 years. They understand that America is unusually fundamentalist for an advanced industrial society, and they exploited the fuck out of it. Even with Clinton for 8 years, they still had incredible power in Washington DC.

i'm not convinced that the republicans now or have ever stood for a social safety net (in terms of what they theoretically stand for, not what they actually stand for) at least in my understanding, they tend to advocate private charity, and question the entire idea that the government would provide any basic services to help the poor, and believe that public assistance just creates dependance, weakness, injures people's dignity, etc. etc.
but i agree with you that a lot of the theoretical republican ideals are good ones, i'm all for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, like a lot of democrats. i think the major difference is i would be more for trimming the fat out of corporate welfare, no-bid contracts, and the military while the republicans want to take it out of social programs.

EDIT: Who fucking cares. I'll let you people wallow in your misery and doomsday soothsaying.

Socialists:

Ralph Nader
David Cobb
Dennis Kucinich

Capitalists:

John Kerry
Howard Dean
Hillary Clinton

Since 1860, what is Republican and what is Democrat (ideologically) has pretty much flipped around. I think the bombs and Jesus thing is too liberally applied to Republicans (especially Southern ones) to the point of being a stereotype. Furthermore, the "bleeding heart liberal" tag that is projected upon most Democrats (especially Northern and Western ones) is just as overdone. Thus, the culture war.

Bloor, that old genteel fraternity of Southern Democrats, the one of our grandfathers, was really just another way of saying KKK. There are, of course, exceptions. That certainly is not intended as an indictment of you, Bloor. The Democratic Party as a whole has to figure out how to make it work in the last 3 elections' "blue states".

this is so disgusting.

what's weird is these people probably give tons of money to charity, when if they gave it to their employee's the world would probably work better.

What makes it even worse is that the minimum wage hasn't been adjusted to reflect the current economy (it's supposed to be $8.00 today). The poor are literally getting poorer while the executive class has captured almost all of the gains in wealth from the growth in gross domestic product in recent decades.

The minimum wage is the most meaningless issue EVER! Historically the minium wage has had little to no impact on wages because when they are adjusted, they match the market price already. Mainly it just defines what already exists..

It's not very meaningless to people "living" on $5.15 an hour in the year 2005.

It's been going on for much longer than "recent decades".

I don't know about "stood for" but Republicans have perpetuated the safety net, mostly for political reasons..... I'd make note that the most comprehensive Welfare reform was made by a Democratic President in concert with a Republican Congress---See what happens when we all work together!!! *cue Partridge Family theme*



I'm with you here, brother.