Thursday, October 28, 2010

Sentries

This is probably going to piss off both sides BUT, in my opinion, one of the major reasons that we had continuous peace and prosperity in the '90s was BECAUSE of divided government. The Republican Congress kept a check on the Clinton administration, and vice versa. Now, absolutely, we weren't able to accomplish everything (a reform of the health-care system, the most obvious omission). But think about it here, 20 million new jobs and four consecutive budget surpluses - does that not look like a pretty good record?...............................................................................................Of course, the question is, can something of a similar nature occur if the Republicans take control of the Congress this year? A great many people say no. They point to the fact that Obama appears to be far more of an ideologue than Clinton and, hence, he may not be able to triangulate like the latter. "They" also point to the increasingly strident nature of the Tea Party movement, the fact that this movement has more or less co-opted the Republican machine (the implication being that they're not going to want to be bipartisan, either)...........................................................................................Hopefully, though, there will be more cooperation. I mean, think about it, we've got what on the horizon; immigration reform, entitlement reform, deficit reduction? I personally don't see any of these things that can be solved by one party alone.....The way that I see it here - get something substantively done, and then argue over who gets the credit afterwards.

6 comments:

Voltron said...

Geez Will,

Yeah we really NEED to cooperate with people hell bent on destroying our country...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Well, we could bring Clinton and Gingrich (the 1994 version) back. That could possibly work, no (tongue at least partially in cheek)?

Silverfiddle said...

As a veteran who served during the Clinton years and couldn't stand they guy, I think in retrospect he was a pretty good president.

He was smart enough to continue Reaganomics and we enjoyed economic prosperity because of it.

Our problems stem from the federal government trying to be all things to all people. It has burst its constitutional bounds.

The statists of both parties are peddling 20th century one-size-fits-all bromides that have clearly failed.

We are a diverse nation, and that calls for robust local and state governments, with the federal government retreating to within the bounds of it's constitutional duties: Defense, borders, national infrastructure.

Leave health care, schools and public assistance to the states and local communities.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I didn't like Clinton much at the time, either (I voted for Perot twice), SF. But, yeah, in retrospect (and certainly after 8 years of Bush and 2 of Obama), I agree, he's looking pretty darn good these days.......It's funny, guys. On some threads, I'm the conservative. On others, I'm the liberal. I guess that on this one I'm the liberal. This, in that, while, no, I'm a not a huge big government guy, I certainly do see a larger role for the Feds (inspecting meat, certainly inspecting oil wells, providing at least a modicum of a safety net, etc.) than do you fellows. Of course, if we're talking about waste, fraud, and duplication, and the need to eliminate as much of that as possible, absolutely, sign me up!

Oso said...

Obama is no ideologue,unless you mean crony capitalism as an ideology. He's branded by many on the Right as liberal but that's merely partisan politics.

Both parties are competing for lobbyist $ and campaign contributions, while attempting to keep up appearances to their respective base.

Silverfiddle w'zup?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Your point is very well taken, Oso. Mr. Obama took a crap-load of money from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Time Warner, IBM, G.E., etc., etc.. That and, yes, let us not forget, and he appointed Mr. Geithner, too.