Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckyd0g
So zonie, you are saying (based on results) that the Democrats are more in favor of income in equality than Republicans, and their goal is to stagnate the Wages of most Americans, and move them into part time work?
I tend to look mainly at the long-term results of what both parties have done. Both have their pluses and minuses; both have their good points, as well as some serious black marks against them.
I will give the Democrats some measure of credit in terms of results, since they inherited quite a mess when FDR was inaugurated in 1933, at the height of the Great Depression. Between FDR and Truman, the Democrats controlled the White House for a period of 20 years, and by the end of that period (1953), the country was enjoying an unprecedented boom of prosperity and economic expansion. At least on economic issues, the Republicans could not touch the Democrats or make any real lasting criticisms which had any effect on public opinion. Even Eisenhower might have been considered a "RINO" in today's parlance, as he agreed with the Democrats on many of the major issues.
But in any case, the Democrats inherited quite a mess in the Great Depression, reversed it, and turned it into one of the greatest periods of economic boom this country has ever seen (roughly the period from the 1940s through the 1960s). Compare that to the period from 1968 through 1992 when the Republicans had control of the White House through nearly all of it, except for a brief pause when Jimmy Carter was President. I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether things got better or things got worse, although it seemed that much of the hope and idealism of the post-war decades had pretty much evaporated by the 1980s. The trade deficit and national debt got much worse under Reagan. He led a push towards deregulation and a greater devotion to laissez-faire capitalism (which has turned into a kind of cult worship for a lot of people ever since).
Of course, I don't think it's as simple as blaming one party or the other. The Democrats are certainly not blameless in all of this, as they've had to deal with their own internal squabbles and divisions within the party. Clinton may have overcome some of that, although just as the OP refers to Obama as Bush Lite, I would say that Clinton could be considered Reagan Lite (or maybe Bush Lite Sr.).
|
RE: "If Obama Were a White Republican, He'd Be a C... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread