Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Partisanship

  1. #1
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Partisanship

    Will someone tell me why it's so bad to be "partisan"? Aren't the parties SUPPOSED to have fundamental disagreements? I ask because I hear constant snide remarks about "partisan" issues, and lovely rhetoric about "the spirit of bi-partisanship"... but as far as I can tell, the two major parties aren't accomplishing anything worthwhile because THEY'RE THE SAME FUCKING PARTY.

    Seems that it's mostly Democrats who hate "partisan" Republicans, but are eager to embrace "bi-partisanship" when it means the Republicans are walking the same line they are.

    The parties are supposed to be alternatives to each other, right? So why is "bi-partisanship" a good thing? What's wrong with being "partisan" if it means you're following your party's platform?

  2. #2
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    Will someone tell me why it's so bad to be "partisan"? Aren't the parties SUPPOSED to have fundamental disagreements?

    There is nothing at all wrong with being partisan. I'm a partisan Democrat and proud of it.

    However, I think there is something wrong with someone claiming to be non-partisan, or an advocate of a third-party (for the sake of example, say the Libertarian Party), when that person is in fact a very partisan advocate of the Democratic or Republican party.

    An extreme example of this would be something like factcheck.org, which claims to be 'non-partisan' but is in fact a website fully funded by the highly partisan Annenberg family. Again - there is nothing wrong with them being partisan. It is the lie that factcheck.org is non-partisan that I object to.
    Last edited by dlabtot; 01-12-2007 at 06:44 PM.

  3. #3
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    If it is a fact, it's a fact.

    Each party goes on about being bi-partisan. Each party is filled with liars.

    Each party is not as homogeneous in ideology as they would like you to think.

    Neither party has been representing the people lately - though the dems have been showing a little spine so far.

    There really should be more than two parties because there are more than two sets of values and ideology in this country.

    Somewhere someone wrote they were surprised about how many conservatives were on this board - I think it really is more about what they are conservative ABOUT and what they are liberal ABOUT. The two parties don't adequately represent the full beautiful spectrum of politics that makes up the United States.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Partisanship

    actually, some 'spine' has been shown on both sides for some time now. The difference is that only one side seems to be reported in mainstream media.

    I give you ...

    Who knows ... if the US economy winds up being a total mess two years from now due to increased US labor costs, increased taxes, increased social welfare benefit costs, a vastly devalued US$ exchange rate, high inflation, high prices for everything from oil to food etc.. Dr. Paul may actually have a chance of being listened to !!!

    However, until then, mainstream media will give us Barack Obama's presidential aspirations as front page news, and leave us to search out similar news re Dr. Paul in obscure / alternative media ! Also, whatever news tidbits about Dr. Paul do wind up getting mainstream media coverage usually have a 'viewpoint' ...



    Realistically, any politician who has Dr. Paul's sort of 'balls' is probably doomed for telling too much of the truth ...

    (snip)"He's seated in his congressional office near a sign than says, "DON'T STEAL; THE GOVERNMENT HATES COMPETITION . ""(snip)
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-14-2007 at 07:44 AM.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol View Post
    ...There really should be more than two parties because there are more than two sets of values and ideology in this country.

    Somewhere someone wrote they were surprised about how many conservatives were on this board - I think it really is more about what they are conservative ABOUT and what they are liberal ABOUT. The two parties don't adequately represent the full beautiful spectrum of politics that makes up the United States.
    Personally, I'm a partisan member of the "Declines to state" party, and have been, since I've been old enough to vote.

    I consider myself conservative, but I'd prefer recreational drugs be legalized, primarily to cut off a large source of income to street gangs(in addition to removing government busybodies from the lives of people who aren't bothering anyone else), but that's a topic for another thread.

  6. #6
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: Partisanship

    I think a lot of people are Libertarians and don't know it. As the Republican Party continues to move farther and farther to the left, I believe that the Libertarian Party will end up filling the conservative void. I hope so, anyway.

  7. #7
    God/dess virgoamm's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In the clouds.....
    Posts
    2,413
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    As the Republican Party continues to move farther and farther to the left, I believe that the Libertarian Party will end up filling the conservative void.
    Eeeeh??? This is news to me! Honestly, I think the Republican party has taken a momentous swing to the right since Bush has been in office. Could you give me some examples, Yek? I'm really interested to hear your ideas on this and what brought you to that conclusion.

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Partisanship

    allow me to jump into this side point ...

    in the eyes of a Libertarian, GWB's creation of new and expensive social welfare program i.e. prescription drug coverage for seniors, was anathema on the same level as FDR or LBJ.

    Also in the eyes of a Libertarian, GWB's deficit spending, international 'borrowing' (i.e. growing sales of US gov't bonds), and continued 'printing' of more and more US dollar money supply (equals dollar devaluation = price inflation) are also anathema on the same level as FDR.

    Not meaning to prosylitize, but Dr. Paul says these things much better than I can ...



    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-14-2007 at 01:28 PM.

  9. #9
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Yes, exactly. The deficit has increased more under the current administration than in every other administration combined; the current Republican Party stands for big government, welfare programs (just of a different kind), big spending, and other leftist ideals. Furthermore, they also believe in a government massive enough to dictate who people have sex with, what birth control a woman may use (if any), and what private medical decisions one may make. As far as I'm concerned, that's just slightly to the left of Castro.

  10. #10
    God/dess virgoamm's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In the clouds.....
    Posts
    2,413
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    But that would lean way on the conservative side, don't you think? I know that the Republican party is supposed to be for less governmental control in general-BUT-I think these restrictions have more to do with the fact that Bush is a religious jealot that is against gay marriage, birth control and abortions. And the welfare, as far as I know, aside from Seniors getting prescription drug benefits, is corporate welfare and tax cuts as well as him wanting to give governmental funding to religious programs. I think the current administration is more about big government only in the sense that they are trying to impose their religious ideologies on us. And the huge deficit is primarily from the war, isn't it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    Yes, exactly. The deficit has increased more under the current administration than in every other administration combined; the current Republican Party stands for big government, welfare programs (just of a different kind), big spending, and other leftist ideals. Furthermore, they also believe in a government massive enough to dictate who people have sex with, what birth control a woman may use (if any), and what private medical decisions one may make. As far as I'm concerned, that's just slightly to the left of Castro.

  11. #11
    God/dess virgoamm's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In the clouds.....
    Posts
    2,413
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Oh, and big government in the sense of "big brother" too. But I always considered the left (not the extreme left, as in communism) being more for personal freedoms and choice as well as helping those in need.

  12. #12
    God/dess virgoamm's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In the clouds.....
    Posts
    2,413
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Hmmm, maybe I need to do some more reading on what is truly extreme leftist. Right now, communism comes to mind. When I think about the things you said, Yek, the words totalitarian regime rings quite a loud bell....

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Partisanship

    ^^^ a very smart professor once pointed out to me that the political spectrum isn't actually a straight line running from left to right, but a circle viewed head-on where the extreme left and extreme right meet at exactly the same place !

    re personal freedoms, typically the left is very bad on this count. The only major exception (which was highly publicized but never actually enacted) was the de-criminalization of marijuana. Recently the left has restricted the rights of property owners to continue to own their property (emanent domain to benefit private developers), is in the process of regulating what you can or can't eat (trans-fats) / smoke (tobacco) / say (hate speech - college campus discussions).

    As far as freedoms of choice, yes the left has been a highly publicized advocate of a woman's right to choose an abortion. However, they have been much less supportive of freedom of choice re how one can spend the money they have earned (income taxes), what type of handgun they'd like to own, what one can do with their own property (zoning) etc.

    As far as helping those in need, one really needs to define 'help'. Arguably the 6 trillion dollars spent on social welfare programs since LBJ's 'great society' programs were instituted have not actually 'helped' poor people at all (since they are still poor) ... but instead have made 'poor' people almost totally dependent on gov't, have disrupted family structures, have quashed self-esteem, have fostered increased unemployment among the unskilled 'poor' etc. thus having arguably created a permanent 'underclass'.

    For the record, the right has been equally oppressive re personal freedoms lately (homeland security).

    Also for the record, both parties are equally guilty on the corporate welfare count. The only difference is in the types of corporations that each chooses to subsidize (lately oil and drugs versus ethanol and tuna fish).

    And the huge deficit is primarily from the war, isn't it?
    Not even close. For example, just the states of New York and California alone spent more money on social welfare benefit programs last year than the federal gov't spent on the Iraq war. This pie chart of federal gov't expenditures should be interesting ...




    source : New York Times 2005 Feb 7, 2005


    I would also point out that, of the 19% total federal spending fraction spent on military and domestic security, some $560 billion goes to non-middle east related military budget items with about $120 billion going to middle east related military operations. Compared to the $2,251 billion total dollars spent by the federal gov't, the $120 billion directly spent on the Iraq war comprises about 5 percent !!!

    Also, compared to $120 billion of direct spending on the Iraq war, medicaid costs to the federal gov't were on the order of $210 billion with at least twice that much again being paid for by state and local govt's in addition to the federal funding for a total of somewhere around $630 billion being spent on medicaid benefits - in other words the total costs of medicaid benefits were arguably 5 times more expensive than the costs of the iraq war ! It is of course assumed that zero state and local tax money is being spent on middle east related military operations.

    There are far more details (which IMHO are slanted towards worst case due to the nature of the website's sponsors) at And if you really want to depress yourself, go to and scroll down to table 8-3 on page 108 and table 8-16 on page 130 !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-14-2007 at 04:05 PM.

  14. #14
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: Partisanship

    The media has blurred the line a lot by calling some big-government policies "conservative" when they absolutely aren't, at least in the political sense. As far as I'm concerned, the original definitions are still valid and the modern-day Republican Party is just as liberal as the Democrats. Only the rhetoric is different. They vote together more than 80% of the time.

    Which brings us back to the thread topic - it seems these days that we suffer from an excess of "bi-partisanship," and I wonder when that became a good thing.

  15. #15
    God/dess virgoamm's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In the clouds.....
    Posts
    2,413
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    ^^ Sorry Yek-I didn't mean to derail your discussion! I was just trying to pick your brain on some of the things you said.

  16. #16
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: Partisanship

    No, it wasn't derailed! It just came back around, which I found interesting.

  17. #17
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    There was a time when conservative meant to conserve the power alloted to government.

    Liberal meant the power alloted to government was very liberal.

    Now days it seems to be more defined by what one's stand is on a variety of issues.

  18. #18
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Gentle Reader, Melonie was quite selective - to put it kindly - in the information she reposted from warresisters.org:

    The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (below).
    http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post




    source : New York Times 2005 Feb 7, 2005


    HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

    Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($449 billion), the military portion from other departments ($114 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($100 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

    These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 . The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 17, 2006, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

    *Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.

    http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

    US military spending as a percentage of discretionary spending, 1962--2003

    http://www.truthandpolitics.org/mili...ative-size.php

  19. #19
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Also, compared to $120 billion of direct spending on the Iraq war,
    Where did you get that figure?

    To date, the government has spent $479 billion to fund the war effort, including $72 billion in a 2006 supplemental bill now working its way through Congress.
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...4AA5E26D9FD%7D
    Iraq war's price tag close to Vietnam's
    Cost is projected to surpass $660 billion sometime next year


    Originally published January 15, 2007


    By the time the Vietnam War ended in 1975, it had become America's longest war, shadowed the legacies of four presidents, killed 58,000 Americans along with many thousands more Vietnamese and cost the United States more than $660 billion in today's dollars.

    By the time the bill for World War II passed the $600 billion mark, in mid-1943, the United States had driven German forces out of North Africa, devastated the Japanese fleet in the Battle of Midway and launched the vast offensives that would liberate Europe and the South Pacific.

    The Iraq war is far smaller and narrower than those conflicts, and it has not extended beyond the tenure of a single president. But its cost is beginning to reach historic proportions, and the budgetary "burn rate" for Iraq might be greater than in some periods in past wars.

    If U.S. involvement continues on the current scale, the cost of the war on terrorism - including the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and on other foreign fronts - is projected to surpass this country's Vietnam spending sometime next year.

    -snip-

    Instead of including war costs in the regular budget, such as the one Bush will send to Congress next month, the administration has been asking Congress for emergency-spending bills that short-circuit many of the usual review procedures for appropriating funds.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...home-headlines

  20. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Partisanship

    However one interprets the accounting for Social Security and medicare, the $120 billion dollars spent on middle east military operations is still a 'small' amount compared to medicare spending, compared to 'discretionary spending', compared to interest payments on our national debt etc.

    Personally I happen to feel that Social Security and medicare are real taxes and real expenditures and account for a huge percentage of total federal spending. Despite the attempts by the originators of Social Security and medicare to obscure their true cost via a scheme of swapping 'special bonds' with the general revenue budget, for a fact US taxpayers are paying taxes through the nose for these programs. Thus their cost cannot simply be brushed aside.

    However, even if one does subscribe to the notion that Social Security and medicare taxes / spending belongs in a 'separate pocket', as shown by the second pie chart, $120 billion vs $600 odd billion of current military expenditures means that middle east military operations amount to about 1/5th of 30% or 6% ... versus the 5% I originally posted which was arrived at via a different calculation ... exCUUUUUse me !

    One could also note from your line chart that military spending as a percentage of 'discretionary spending' has been at a lower level since 2001 under GWB than at any time in the 90's under Bill Clinton, and is now at a MUCH lower level than at any time in the 60's under JFK and LBJ. However, this statistic is basically a distortion since a 20% increase in military spending as a result of middle east military operations is easily overshadowed by spending for medicaid and 'discretionary items' which are growing at rates higher than 20% !!!.

    Where did you get that figure? 120 billion - sic
    I was generous and gave the benefit of the doubt that there were other costs besides the $100 billion official supplemental appropriation for middle east military operations.


    As to comparisons of the costs of past wars, who cares !!! If you're all that worried about costs, figure that the US gov't spent a total of $ 500 billion or whatever over the course of 5 years to save the lives of perhaps 15,000 US civilians ... who did NOT die as a result of additional islamic terrorist attacks on US soil that did NOT occur as a result of the US military presence in the middle east. Also, if you're all that worried about the cost, how about an across the board 20% reduction in medicaid spending which would more than pay for the entire middle east war ! Personally, of all the things that my tax money gets spent on, the middle east military operations appear to be 'affordable insurance' !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-15-2007 at 04:46 PM.

  21. #21
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    I was generous and gave the benefit of the doubt that there were other costs besides the $100 billion official supplemental appropriation for middle east military operations.
    What I am asking is where you got this (incorrect) $100 billion figure?

    As I noted above:

    To date, the government has spent $479 billion to fund the war effort, including $72 billion in a 2006 supplemental bill now working its way through Congress.
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...4AA5E26D9FD%7D

  22. #22
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Partisanship

    again, the $120 billion figure that I used was for last year's costs ... comprised of the actual 2006 supplemental appropriation for Iraq plus another guesstimated $20 billion in peripheral costs not directly included in that supplemental appropriation. If you prefer that I use the $72 billion dollar figure cited by your author I'll be glad to ... it reduces the percentage of total federal spending on the Iraq war down to 4% !

    The $479 billion dollar figure is the cumumative total for all middle east military expenditures since operations began in early 2002. This is a bit misleading, since if the same logic were applied to the costs of WW2 America is STILL incurring military expenditures to keep troops stationed in Germany and Japan. Of course the same sort of logic applied to social welfare programs results in a total figure of SIX TRILLION dollars in non-inflation adjusted US taxpayer's money having been spent on such programs, with more people than ever still in need of low income assistance.

    The point of course is that in every war since WW2, America has not fought to 'win' as a matter of national policy. This obviously causes conflicts to last much longer, and cumulative costs to rack up higher totals, than if a couple of nuclear bombs had been dropped near the onset ! I'm not advocating that America should have done so in Iraq, only pointing out that your author's attempted comparison to WW2 is a case of apples vs oranges.

  23. #23
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    The point of course is that in every war since WW2, America has not fought to 'win' as a matter of national policy. This obviously causes conflicts to last much longer, and cumulative costs to rack up higher totals, than if a couple of nuclear bombs had been dropped near the onset !
    Michael Scheuer's Imperial Hubris points this out. In recent years the US has consistently failed to take the gloves off in overseas military operations.
    And it comes back to haunt us.

  24. #24
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Partisanship

    ^^ Is it just a coincidence that WW2 is also the last time we actually folllowed our Constitution and went to war after a declaration of war by Congress?

    I think not.
    Last edited by dlabtot; 01-19-2007 at 03:20 PM.

  25. #25
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Partisanship

    ^^^ it's no coincidence. Back in 1941 FDR was allowed to provoke and maneuver Japan into attacking America in order to get the mainstream media on board and thus sell a declaration of war to congress. Prior attempts by FDR to sell a declaration of war in 1940/41 after the fall of France and attacks on Britain had failed due to isolationists / pacifists such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh and mainstream media opinion. It was only after Germany had invaded Communist Russia, and appeared to be winning, that the mainstream media and the isolationists / pacifists opposition started to melt away. Thus FDR was able to get a declaration of war against Germany days after getting a declaration of war against Japan even though Germany had made no blatant attacks against America (and had in fact issued orders to the German navy to specifically avoid making any such attacks).

    The 'tin foil hat' crowd would tell you that if communist / socialist nations were part of the present middle east 'coalition' there would have been no problem getting a full scale declaration of war past the US congress with communist / socialist nations as our 'allies' !!!

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-19-2007 at 06:35 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •